Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/11/2001 01:07 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 135 - MUNICIPAL FEES: POLICE & FIRE SERVICES Number 0264 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 135, "An Act relating to municipal fees for certain police protection services." [Before the committee was CSHB 135(CRA).] Number 0200 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 135, version 22-LS0421\P, Cook, 4/11/01, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version P was before the committee. Number 0137 REPRESENTATIVE GRETCHEN GUESS, Alaska State Legislature, testified as the sponsor of HB 135. She explained that HB 135 allows municipalities that so choose to charge residential owners for excessive use of police visits with some qualifications. She pointed out that the definition of excessive use and the amount of the fee are left to the municipality to determine. Representative Guess said, "My goal is to make this tool available to municipalities and not to burden them with any state mandates or too many sideboards for them to do their job." However, there are two exceptions, for domestic violence and potential stalking. In such instances, [she said she] doesn't want to charge those people or discourage them from calling. This bill is aimed at residential owners and landlords who aren't responsible for the tenants or themselves when there is a nuisance in a neighborhood. Furthermore, she explained that HB 135 specifies that the ordinance would require actual notice to a property owner in order to ensure that the property owner would know that there would be a fee if corrective action isn't taken. TAPE 01-63, SIDE A Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE GUESS noted that the bankers had some problems with a previous version of HB 135. The language in question has been cleaned up and thus the bankers now support the bill. Representative Guess reiterated that the purpose of HB 135 is to provide municipalities with one more tool to hold people accountable for their actions. She mentioned that the Anchorage Police Department, the Fairbanks Police Department, and the cities of Anchorage and Fairbanks are in support of HB 135. Number 0090 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that one of the things she likes about HB 135 is that the police would have to notify the landlord of visits to his/her property. Often, the landlord doesn't know of such police visits and would probably appreciate that knowledge. Representative James related her belief that the Landlord Tenant Act didn't include the ability to evict a person receiving excessive amounts of police visits. Therefore, she said she thinks that this bill could "reach over there" if the sponsor so desired. She noted her desire to place an emphasis on that in HB 135; she asked if Representative Guess would object. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS replied no. She mentioned that she is currently having an amendment to the Alaska Landlord Tenant [Act] drafted to have that corrective action taken if this bill passes. She offered to ask Tam Cook, Director, Legal and Research Services, if such would be allowed under the title of HB 135. She noted that she had planned to have the corrective action encompassed in another bill. CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that it would probably be better if this concept could be incorporated under the current title of HB 135 because another piece of legislation could be avoided. Number 0250 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN posed a situation in which neighbors don't like each other and one neighbor calls the police, which results in the neighbor's receiving a fine. In such a situation, there could be a due process problem because of the person receiving a fine without ever really committing a crime. He noted his assumption that this is a civil fee. Representative Ogan expressed concern with the ability of people to harass their neighbors if they don't like them. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS pointed out that HB 135 addresses excessive calls and she reiterated that the municipality would define "excessive". Furthermore, she expressed her attempt to keep as much of the control as possible at the local level in order that the local authorities can take into consideration the local situation and false reporting. Therefore, it is left to local municipalities to address. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked that he would feel better if the complaints resulted in something for which the person was [charged]. He expressed concern with possible abuse. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that filing a false police report is already a crime. Number 0531 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER explained that he co-sponsored this legislation because there is a problem in Anchorage, especially with absentee landlords. Often, there is a lot of police attention given to these properties as well as taxpayer dollars. Therefore, Representative Meyer felt that this is an attempt to encourage absentee landlords to take corrective action or help pay for some of the expenses. Representative Meyer commented that HB 135 has achieved concurrence from both the Anchorage mayor's office and the Anchorage Assembly. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN surmised that this legislation might result in the net effect of moving undesirable folks from Anchorage to the Mat-Su Valley, which is not a municipality and is served by the State Troopers. The State Troopers are not allowed to charge for excessive calls. CHAIR ROKEBERG expressed concerns similar to that of Representative Ogan in regard to apartment dwellers. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated she was concerned about whether there is due process for the tenant or the landlord. She questioned whether it should be addressed in HB 135. Number 0713 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that he gets nervous when liens are placed on property. He informed the committee that Fairbanks has approximately six hotel establishments that rent to transient people. The police are often called to these places. He expressed the need to address such situations via HB 135. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS pointed out that HB 135 currently focuses on residential property and that hotels are commercial property. CHAIR ROKEBERG mentioned his experience in defining residential real property under Alaska's statutes, which [define] residential real property as being [property that is smaller than] a four-plex. Therefore, he asked if Representative Guess would oppose adoption of that. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS expressed her willingness to consider it, but she wanted to take more time because some of the problems are with the larger apartment buildings. Number 0847 MARK MEW, Deputy Chief, Anchorage Police Department (APD), testified via teleconference. He noted that he had sent a letter of support to Representative Guess. The Anchorage Police Department supports HB 135. Mr. Mew said that it is nice that this bill allows the ordinance to be crafted at the local level. In regard to the discussion surrounding larger apartment buildings, Mr. Mew thought such locations would be a logical application of this law. He mentioned that APD had responded to a large apartment building more than 250 times a year for about three years in a row; the owner also owned about three other buildings, all of which had significant responses as well. Therefore, this bill is a way to ferret out such owners, contact them early, and recover some of the costs. Mr. Mew reiterated his support. MR. MEW turned to Representative James' remarks regarding notice to the property owner. Mr. Mew agreed with providing the property owner notice before fining a person. He understood Representative James to read HB 135 as providing notice to the property owner each time the police go to the property. However, Mr. Mew expressed his hope that the language is broad enough that the police would notify the property owner after a specified threshold. If that's not the case, he wasn't certain that the police would be able to notify each property owner each time the police respond. He noted his preference for there to be a computer system that could screen out the logical candidates. MR. MEW then turned to Representative Ogan's concerns regarding harassment. Mr. Mew agreed that hypothetically there could be a problem with that. However, he didn't believe that would be a large problem. He informed the committee that the enhanced 911 system collects peoples' names and locations; thus if there is one neighbor repeatedly calling in on another, that would be available as evidence of harassment or a false report. Mr. Mew reviewed how a computer system could provide data that could be sorted in order to determine who should receive letters. Number 1213 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES related her perspective that it would be courteous to notify landlords that the police had responded to their property. However, she didn't believe that it was necessary to include in this legislation, but she indicated the hope that the municipality would view the landlord as an asset in these situations. MR. MEW said he believes that 99 percent of the landlords would like to cooperate and don't want their places trashed. However, in his opinion, he believes there are some landlords whose market niche is exactly the opposite, and those folks are expensive to deal with. Mr. Mew informed the committee that APD is working with the landlords in Anchorage by offering a landlord/tenant school. In regard to notifying every landlord of each response, it often requires an investigation in order to determine who the landlord is. Mr. Mew reiterated that he wasn't sure that [APD] could [notify the landlord of each response at his/her property]. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN related his belief that by getting landlords to be more responsible, these [problem] people would be dispersed throughout the community. Specifically, he is concerned that these people would move to the Mat-Su Valley. Although Representative Ogan related his belief that HB 135 is well-intentioned, he did have concerns due to possible residual effects. He indicated that changing the bill such that it would allow troopers to fall under this as well would provide him more comfort. Representative Ogan inquired as to where these tenants are going to go if their landlords clean up their act. Number 1460 ALLAN E. TESCHE, Member, Anchorage Assembly, testified via teleconference. Mr. Tesche remarked that this legislation is primarily intended to address drug houses, illegal alcohol establishments, and gambling in urban areas. Mr. Tesche noted that he is speaking from experience with Anchorage's attorney's office as well as personal experience with a "crack house" in his own neighborhood. MR. TESCHE turned to the fact that HB 135 currently only applies to residential properties. He strongly recommended that this bill not be limited to four-plexes because some of the larger complexes have some of the most serious problems. The amendments made in House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee (HCRA) were excellent because they make it clear that there must be a warning to landlords, actual notice to the property owner, and consideration of a good-faith effort to take corrective action by a landlord. Mr. Tesche emphasized that the most important aspect of HB 135 is that it allows local governments the ability to craft the ordinance. This committee could, over the next several days, carve out all of the due process [provisions] and definitions necessary to make the ordinance work. However, if municipalities are not trusted to pass such ordinances, then this bill shouldn't pass the legislature. Mr. Tesche related his belief that local governments can pass responsible local legislation along the guidelines established in statute. Number 1602 MR. TESCHE turned to the earlier mention of an amendment to the Landlord Tenant Act in order to make it easier for landlords to deal with these problems. He felt such a change would be acceptable as long as the changes were fair to both the landlord and the tenant. However, he hoped that such amendments wouldn't slow the progress of HB 135 through the legislature. He then turned to the mention of neighborhood feuds; this bill doesn't authorize or sanction private causes of action for private disputes. Neighborhood feuds could be addressed at the local level. He related his belief that Representative Ogan's concern is misplaced, as is the notion that HB 135 is shifting problems from Anchorage to the Mat-Su Valley. Therefore, Mr. Tesche predicted that this bill would result in Anchorage's cleaning itself up. Furthermore, if problems do arise in the Mat-Su Valley, then corrective legislation could be considered. In conclusion, Mr. Tesche urged support of HB 135. CHAIR ROKEBERG agreed that large multi-family dwellings should not be excluded. However, he noted that he is considering offering an amendment that would provide the owner of the property an affirmative defense if [the property owner] is given notice to quit that is delivered prior to the imposition of the fee. He asked if such an amendment would be appropriate. MR. TESCHE answered that on the surface the amendment sounds reasonable; however, he said that he would have to think about it. CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that under either the Landlord Tenant Act or common law, there is a requirement of 30 days' notice for noncause. He said that a tenant could conceivably be in place for 59 days before he/she has to quit the premises, if it is not for failure to pay rent. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that there is some new language in the Landlord Tenant Act regarding [the notice]. MR. TESCHE reiterated that on the surface [Chair Rokeberg's amendment] sounds reasonable. He pointed out that on page 2, line 2, of Version P it states that "the property owner is not liable for the fee if that action is promptly taken." Mr. Tesche offered that this language provides a clear guideline to the municipalities to establish something by perhaps defining an "appropriate corrective action." He said this would probably be addressed at the local level. CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that he wasn't surprised by Mr. Tesche's comments. However, "we" have some proprietary issues with what should be in statute in terms of granting powers to local assemblies. MR. TESCHE commented, "That is a policy decision that the legislature alone will decide." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed the need to review the Landlord Tenant Act because she recalled that there were revisions regarding drug uses. However, she felt that this should be separate from HB 135 due to the need for a change in the title. [There was discussion regarding how the committee should proceed with this bill.] Number 1919 LAUREE HUGONIN, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), noted her appreciation of the exceptions for domestic violence and stalking. She noted that she has brought forward a further concern regarding an exception for victims of sexual assault, although she realized the difficulty in crafting language "that specifies ... the statute that you don't want them to charge." She explained that with domestic violence and stalking there are often repeated acts, whereas with sexual assault there would not be, although the victim may request police to do drivebys and check the premises for prowlers. She expressed her hope of working with the sponsor to find a solution. However, there is a national and state history that illustrates that law enforcement has not always responded promptly in cases of domestic violence or sexual assault. Ms. Hugonin acknowledged that [HB 135] aims to discourage repeat visits of law enforcement. However, she has folks with whom she wanted to encourage law enforcement to make visits as necessary and not have the individual charged. Ms. Hugonin noted that she has not been able to craft language that would help address the sponsor's concern. Although she didn't necessarily want to stall HB 135, she felt that it was an important matter that should be dealt with. Number 2039 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that Ms. Hugonin's concern could be dealt with at the local level, where it could be made more specific than in HB 135. She asked if Ms. Hugonin would be comfortable with the committee's moving the bill. MS. HUGONIN related her reluctance to say "comfortable," although she understood the [need for] immediacy. Ms. Hugonin said, "Victims of sexual assault should not have to pay for repeated visits from law enforcement when they're asked to go to their residence." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ announced his intent, in voting for this legislation, that victims of sexual assault wouldn't be required to pay the cost for repeated calls to law enforcement. He said he was sure that was the intent of every member of the committee. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked, "What if they are spurious calls?" He said that the municipality could make an exception for [spurious calls]. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that the intent is for the municipality to exhibit special sensitivity to the victims of sexual violence because some of the residual effects require the police to make additional responses to the [victim's] residence. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated that at the local level it could be determined whether these are the calls that they want to stop or don't want to stop. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER, as a former member of the Anchorage Assembly, said he would guarantee that domestic violence and sexual assault would be made an exception. CHAIR ROKEBERG asserted that sexual assault is not included in HB 135. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that HB 135 does include sexual assault because domestic violence is defined in AS 18.66.990 as a crime against a person under AS 11.41, which includes sexual assault statutes. Number 2160 MS. HUGONIN said, "When they are domestic violence situations. There are situations of sexual assault that, of course, are not domestic violence." Ms. Hugonin said she appreciated the proclamation of Anchorage's intent, which she hoped would be the intent of municipalities statewide. However, she reiterated that there have been occasions in the past when law enforcement has refused to [respond] to situations of domestic violence and sexual assault. Although that hasn't happened in several years, Ms. Hugonin said she still hears complaints regarding having to respond to such calls. Therefore, the public policy needs to be clear that the aforementioned calls are not the kinds of calls for which municipalities are meant to charge. CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that he didn't believe that HB 135 resolved [Ms. Hugonin's concern]. Furthermore, he didn't believe that it was solvable via drafting. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reiterated that it is an issue that can be handled at the local level. In response to Chair Rokeberg, Representative Berkowitz pointed out that municipalities can define that the fee may not be imposed. CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised, then, that municipalities could have a list of exceptions. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned that it was hard for her to believe that municipalities wouldn't hear [testimony on this issue] while creating the ordinance. CHAIR ROKEBERG expressed concern with the possibility of having "the classic 'wolf' crier that might fit into one of those categories." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that government has moved away from the notion of discretion, even though everything can't be listed all the time. At some point, "we" must [acknowledge] that those in the field doing the job are qualified and will exercise good discretion. However, he acknowledged that there will be instances in which the wrong choice is made. Number 2304 CHAIR ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1: Page 1, line 7, after "property"; Insert "including a multi-family dwelling over four units" REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reiterated that this bill is geared toward urban issues. [There was discussion regarding what would be considered a commercial property.] REPRESENTATIVE MEYER interjected that Representative Guess's intent was to exclude commercial property. Number 2410 CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether there were any objections to Conceptual Amendment 1. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 2419 CHAIR ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, which he specified as follows: "providing that an affirmative defense for the owner of residential property, including multi- family dwellings over four units, is the notice to quit delivered to a tenant prior to the imposition of the fee." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for discussion purposes. He said the problem seems to be that an offending owner could evade responsibility simply by providing notice and not taking any subsequent action. CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that a notice to quit is legal notice that is provided for under the Landlord Tenant Act, which says that "the notice to quit is delivered to the tenant." In response to Representative Berkowitz, he said that one would have to make a delivery of the actual notice. In further response to Representative Berkowitz, Chair Rokeberg offered that the notice to quit is a term of art meaning that [the tenant] leaves the premises. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that she liked [Conceptual Amendment 2] as a solution because it specifies that the landlord has the option to tell the tenant to get out. TAPE 01-63, SIDE B Number 2465 CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that Conceptual Amendment 2 is a conceptual amendment. He restated his amendment as follows: "An affirmative defense for the owner of residential property, including multi-family dwellings over four units, is the notice to quit delivered to a tenant prior to imposition of the fee." MR. MEW turned to Conceptual Amendment 2. He posed a situation in which a building has 20 or 30 units, 10 of which are crack houses. Does [Conceptual Amendment 2] mean that after 200 calls for service, there would be an attempt to bill the landlord for police activity? If the landlord served one eviction notice to one individual, would the process start over again? He noted that the crack dealers move around and thus it is difficult to know what is happening at any given time in each room. However, the end result is that the police are going to the same apartment complex 200 times a year for people that are living in different units at different times. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as to [Mr. Mew's opinion] of adding the language that specifies that the notice to quit [would be delivered] to the offenders. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested that [language could be inserted] that says "municipalities may provide for an affirmative defense" and let the municipality determine the defense. CHAIR ROKEBERG announced his preference to make that an affirmative defense. However, he noted his willingness to amend the amendment to provide for the "musical-chair tenant." MR. MEW related his vision of how this would work in Anchorage. He anticipated that a notice of the intention to bill would be sent to the landlord, which would generate some discussion that [would set some goals for the landlord to attempt to work this out]. Mr. Mew viewed this as a long-range tool. CHAIR ROKEBERG acknowledged that a situation as described by Mr. Mew could happen, which would defeat the purpose of his amendment. MR. MEW informed the committee that many of the [callers] will not identify themselves, and provide no information. Although the police eventually learn to identify certain people, the [police] will never learn who the actual tenants are and the rooms to which they belong. Therefore, he believes it would be difficult to hang [the affirmative defense] on the landlord's being able to serve legal notice on one person. He felt that notice may be served on one apartment, but that would negate "your" effort. Number 2270 CHAIR ROKEBERG made a motion to amend Conceptual Amendment 2, "to prohibit that tenant from moving from one unit to another within the same dwelling, multi-family dwelling, or project thereof, under the same ownership." Number 2248 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected and said he didn't believe that would address Mr. Mew's concern or get to the root of the problem. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that page 2 of Version P reads as follows: "The ordinance must also define 'appropriate corrective action' ... and provide that the property owner is not liable for the fee if that action is promptly taken." Therefore, she felt that it might be covered. Furthermore, the burden of defining this is placed on the municipality. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated agreement and remarked that it is local control. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued by relating her belief that the property owners are being protected because they can take corrective action, and if they don't like it, they could go to court. CHAIR ROKEBERG, speaking as a former landlord, said he would trust the assembly. He related his belief that it would be a bad body of law if there is statute on the books that can't be made an affirmative defense and doesn't result in an affirmative defense. Chair Rokeberg said, "And because of the way it's drafted right now, you could have up to 59 days where the landlord has no ability unless there is a provision for a nuisance ability to force that person out quicker." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ related his understanding that Chair Rokeberg is concerned that the landlords would be "on the hook" even if they made a good-faith effort. Therefore, he suggested inserting language that says, "The landlord must make a good- faith effort to remediate the problem." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated her belief that HB 135 already says that. CHAIR ROKEBERG returned to Representative James' earlier statement that as a landlord, sometimes the only alternative is to deliver the notice to quit. Then, if the person overstays his/her statutory limit, law enforcement can oust him/her from the premises. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that there are other things that can be done besides provided the notice to quit. CHAIR ROKEBERG emphasized that this is a very tenant-friendly statute. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if a committee substitute could be brought before the committee. Number 2077 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the committee could require that appropriate corrective action include a notice to quit. He asked if the committee wanted to do that. He said that could be considered Conceptual Amendment 2 [which would replace the previous Conceptual Amendment 2]. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that would be fine and removed his objection to [the new] Conceptual Amendment 2. Number 2043 CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether there were any objections to Conceptual Amendment 2, as restated. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 2029 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to report CSHB 135, version 22- LS0421\P, Cook, 4/11/01, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 135(JUD) was reported from House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|